Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) Bill 2025, Universities Accord (National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2025; Second Reading

Coker supported the bills, arguing they provide enforceable standards and empower the National Student Ombudsman to hold universities accountable. Coker highlighted that the code requires trauma-informed responses, prevention education, and consideration of gender-based violence history in staff recruitment. Coker noted that vice-chancellors and CEOs would be personally accountable for compliance, with civil penalties available for non-compliance. Coker acknowledged the advocacy of survivor groups and emphasised that the reforms build on existing university efforts to create safer environments.

Spender supported the bill, crediting student activists for highlighting the scale of harm on campuses. Spender noted that over 14,000 sexual assaults occur annually and that few students report incidents due to institutional failures. Spender welcomed the requirement for whole-of-organisation response plans and trauma-informed complaints processes. Spender also supported Leeser's amendment regarding antisemitism, citing distressing experiences of Jewish students and the need for similar protections against religious hatred. Spender argued that universities must ensure safety for all students regardless of background.

Kearney supported the bill, sharing personal experiences of sexual harassment and the cultural normalisation of violence against women. Kearney highlighted that Indigenous, LGBTIQ+, and disabled students face higher risks of assault. Kearney argued the bill establishes a standalone regulatory framework with real oversight and consequences for institutions. Kearney acknowledged the work of survivor advocates and the Minister for Education in driving these reforms. Kearney linked the bill to broader government efforts to address gender inequality and violence prevention.

Steggall supported the bill as a step towards safer campuses, citing statistics on sexual harassment and assault. Steggall welcomed the regulatory infrastructure for compliance and the requirement for vice-chancellors to report on implementation actions. Steggall emphasised that policy alone is insufficient and called for long-term investment and resources to help universities meet their obligations. Steggall noted the financial struggles of the university sector and argued that institutions need adequate support to create lasting cultural change.

Jarrett supported the bill, highlighting the high prevalence of sexual harassment and assault among university students. Jarrett argued the legislation establishes a standalone regulatory framework with accountability measures for vice-chancellors and CEOs. Jarrett noted the creation of a specialist unit within the Department of Education to monitor compliance and issue penalties. Jarrett shared a survivor's story to illustrate the inadequacy of current support systems and emphasised the need for trauma-informed responses and prevention education.

Chaney supported the bill's principles but raised concerns about delegated legislation and practical implementation for student accommodation providers. Chaney highlighted issues regarding data sharing, privacy obligations, workforce resourcing, and the lack of guidance for smaller providers facing new compliance requirements. Chaney urged the government to provide adequate resources and tailored support to ensure effective compliance without undermining service delivery.

Berry argued that the bill shifts accountability to institutions, establishing mandatory national standards and robust enforcement mechanisms including civil penalties. Berry noted the legislation builds on the National Student Ombudsman and requires vice-chancellors to report on compliance and implement whole-of-organisation prevention plans. Berry emphasised that the code addresses systemic failures and ensures survivors receive timely, expert responses.

Ryan cited high rates of sexual assault and harassment, noting that previous university responses were often inadequate or ineffective. Ryan argued that external oversight and enforcement are necessary to ensure institutions meet meaningful standards for safety, support, and timely resolution of complaints. Ryan highlighted that the code prohibits non-disclosure agreements unless requested by survivors and specifically addresses safety in student accommodation.